America Turning To Partisan News Sources

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 17:31


The Pew Internet and American Life project has just released their survey detailing online political engagement in the 2008 campaign. In the category of "everyone already knew that," were findings that more people are using the Internet than ever, the Internet is now at least equal to newspapers as a source of campaign news, political activism is increasing online, Obama votes are more politically active online than McCain voters, and young people use the Internet more than old people. Well, duh.

However, as is typical for Pew, there were also some very interesting findings. In particular, people are now seeking out partisan websites in much greater numbers than ever before. In fact, partisan news sources are much more sought out online than non-partisan websites (emphasis mine):

Fully a third of online political users (33%) now say that when they get online political information most of the sites they visit share their point of view - up from 26% who said that in 2004. This rise in partisan information-seeking matches a decline in the number of online political users who say most of the sites they visit do not have a particular point of view. In 2004, 32% of online political users said most of the sites they visited had no particular point of view and that percentage dropped to 25% in 2008. There was no difference between 2004 and 2008 in the number of online political users who said most of the sites they visit challenge their point of view.

Both Democrats and Republicans are now more likely to gravitate towards online sites with an explicitly partisan slant than they were in 2004. Fully 44% of Democratic online political users (up from 34% in 2004) and 35% of Republican online political users (up from 26% in 2006) now say that they mostly visit sites that share their political point of view. However, the biggest change between elections occurred among the young. In 2004, 22% of online political users ages 18-24 said most of the sites they visit shared their views. That doubled to 43% of online political users in that age range in 2008.

Those who are most information hungry are the most likely to browse sites that match their views.

It is not surprising that partisanship is increasing even as President Obama is praised for his talk of trying to get past partisanship. Whether the country's public thirst for bipartisanship is an act of projection in pretending that partisanship is something foisted upon it from the outside even though it is rising up internally, or whether it is a backlash response from the dwindling ranks of non-partisan in response to an inevitable rising tide of partisans remains unclear. The truth is that it is probably a mix of both, combined with a nice dash of politicians offering up fake solutions (like bipartisanship) to real problems.

The truth is, however, that no one, even President Obama, can stem or slow a cultural shift of this magnitude. For 7% of Internet users to stop reading non-partisan websites in just four years is a broad social trend bigger than any one person. The country is getting more partisan, whether we like it or not. The best idea is probably to start figuring out how best to manage an increasingly partisan country, rather than pretending it can be wished away by Republicans and Democrats eating lunch together.

Chris Bowers :: America Turning To Partisan News Sources

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Should not be a surprise (0.00 / 0)
Humankind seem always to want to win, be on top or be part of the winning team and to then remain there, unchallenged, and accomplish this with the least amount of effort. Merely "co-existing" is simply  not in our makeup. That is why professional sports is so popular and why people develop such strong allgiances to "winning" teams...as well as explaining why losing  football coaches get fired so quickly.
Seeking out and hiding within partisan enclaves ensures that you will be surrounded by people who both agree with and support you. It seems to confirm your idea of self-worth.

And if everything you read is agreeable, and agrees with you, it eliminates the need for real thinking and keeps you placid and comfortable. It is Wal-Mart intellectualism. I'm not going to read any of that right wing stuff! They might have a point and I'd have to think  about it! Hell, I might even have to change my mind! What do you think this is, a democracy?


partisan news viewing (4.00 / 2)
Of course people are turning to partisan news reporting... There's no impartial news on anywhere.  So you have to pick your poison.  We have no choice.  D.

exactly (4.00 / 1)
not to mention it misses a fundamental point about the blogosphere - blogs engage each other across partisan lines. It is quite clear from surfing through the most popular blogs on all sides of an issue where everybody stands. By contrast, reading just one "non partisan" source such as corporate media will often slant the issue without you even necessarily knowing if you aren't up on the issue or read the blogs regularly. so even though people are searching out partisan sites, that doesn't necessarily mean they are missing any side of the story.  

[ Parent ]
Norm (4.00 / 3)
In most of Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries newspapers and opinion magazines were expected to have a political point of view. There were also lots of political parties or factions which matched these.

At the turn of the 20th Century the situation in the US wasn't much different. NYC is said to have had about 100 newspapers (some weekly) which catered to political and ethnic orientations.

Around the middle of the century we got the "neutral" reporting meme which, I think, was due to the attitudes of the owners of the two principal TV networks - NBC and Sarnoff and CBS and Paley. Because license renewal was still open to challenge, and the rise of McCarthy had put everyone on edge they promoted a non-partisan stand. Several of the major papers (NY Times and Washington Post) also adopted this attitude - even though they were really strongly "Main Street" Republican on business issues.

Cable and the internet have allowed publications to recapture their original partisan missions. Being more overt has also made the public more aware that there isn't any such thing as real neutrality.

So when people say they visit sites that reflect partisan viewpoints they may just be factoring in their new understanding as much as they are indicating a fundamental change in behavior.

If you wanted to visit a "neutral" site where would you go? The closest I can find is the BBC Worldservice and this is only true as long as they stay away from internal British politics where their coverage tends to be timid out of the same sorts of fears that plagued NBC and CBS in the early days.

Better to reveal your biases, than to pretend you don't have any. That's why Colbert is funny he mocks Fox by acting as they do, but while speaking double entendres.  

Policies not Politics


About to say same thing - you used to have bosses' paper & union papers (4.00 / 1)
In the early 20th century, you didn't think there was just 1 or 2 "objective" news sources.  You had your union and labor papers, socialist papers, ethnic papers, and then the big city / bosses' papers.

Now, all that's left is the bosses' media, outside the internet and a couple shows on MSNBC and community radio stations and a few Air America stations.

So we're going back a bit more to the pre-redbaiting / pre-Cold War model.


[ Parent ]
There's the whole (4.00 / 1)
"your rights end where my nose begins" concept.

Partisans fighting to control the levers of power of an ever more intrusive military-industrial complex is not the promise of America.

Empower individuals and restrain organizations. Get the locus of control closer to the grass roots; whether that control be government or corporation.

If that was accomplished, it would diffuse a lot of the angst about politics.


Wildly Misinterpreted (4.00 / 2)
The information conveyed here is being presented in an extraordinarily misleading way. It constitutes a leap of logic [based on an unstated assumption] to move from "online political users [ ] now say that when they get online political information most of the sites they visit share their point of view" to "partisanship is increasing even as President Obama is praised for his talk of trying to get past partisanship". First and foremost, we use the word partisan typically (and inarguably are using it here, in this case) to talk about aligning with one or the other of the two dominant political parties. I get all of my news online. Some of it comes from "traditional" sources, like the NYT, but I read it online. Furthermore, I read enough news that I don't like to waste my time reading commentators with whom I mostly disagree. Instead, I seek out independent sources that tend to have the same worldview or underlying assumptions that I do. Thus, it seems to me that I would fit neatly into this apparently growing category of online "partisans". But, despite the fact that I might self-identify as a Democrat (especially in a narrowly framed question with no possibility to qualify my answer, e.g. in a poll), I don't think anyone outside of Fox News or AEI would call any of my news sources partisan or Democratic. "Left-leaning" might be about the closest one could come.

My point here, and the nature of the underlying assumption which I am trying to point out, is that viewing/reading/listening to a news source that matches one's views is hardly the same as partisanship as it's normally construed. This is especially true when we talk about the political class or Obama in particular pandering to Washington Establishment ideas of "bipartisanship" or the "post-partisan era". They're almost certainly not referring to decreasing partisanship among online news readers, or trending toward centrism in the populace. On a side note, Glenn Greenwald has compellingly disputed the idea, which the author upholds, that there is an outcry for bipartisanship in the American populace.

I'm also not quite sure what's meant by the phrase, "The country is getting more partisan, whether we like it or not." This suggests to me some kind of polarization (which is the only kind of degree of partisanship I can really imagine, unless I'm missing something), which, to say the least, is a rather bold conclusion to draw from this statistical data. How, exactly, does the author know that people seeking out news sources more in line with their beliefs are becoming increasingly radicalized? Certainly that's a possible explanation of what's happening, but it must only be one among many. Without further information, we're not really warranted to draw this conclusion.

Lastly, I question the notion that respondents view websites with "no particular point of view". What does it mean to have no particular point of view? Every individual and institution has some point of view, and it's usually pretty apparent when they write about controversial or quasi-controversial subjects on a daily basis, as political writers by definition do. It's much more likely that these respondents simply aren't aware of the point of view underlying their source, or it's so close to their own that they tend to think of it as normal. Consider how many times Bill O'Reilly has painted the Fox network as a non-partisan network. Do you suppose any of that 25% included Fox viewers who steadfastly deny the bias on that network? Or what about less obvious mistakes, like a reader of the WSJ who thinks it is an objective presentation of commerce-related subjects? Or a loyal NYT reader who thinks that the newspaper is so established that it is beyond non-objective reporting?

Is it really "[t]he best idea... to start figuring out how best to manage an increasingly partisan country"? For whom is this "[t]he best idea"? There's a vast amount of information available, especially on the internet, and to paraphrase Noam Chomsky [who researches so much political material that it's become like a "second day job", according to his wife], coming at it without some kind of conceptual framework is a recipe for disaster. It is just not the case that Republicans who "challenge" themselves by watching things like Democracy Now! are better Republicans because they don't just read conservative media. It's not the case that I'm not as well-informed or rounded of a liberal because I don't watch at least some Fox News every day or subscribe to the National Review. Trying to obtain news from sources that you believe slant or distort things in a way that you disagree with is a good way to get annoyed and a bad way to get informed. If the goal is to challenge one's beliefs on a political subject, the right place to start is the library or a Google search, not by switching news outlets.


Please ... (0.00 / 0)
somebody tell me what a "non-partisan news site" means. I have no idea -- that is not snark.

Can it happen here?

Foreign news (0.00 / 0)
The closest thing I've found is news from foreign outlets such as the BBC.  This is of course informed by the same sources most of the time (such as associated press) but can have a less "partisan" viewpoint particularly because Dems and Reps are distinctly American parties.  Of course no writer can write outside of his or her own worldview, so a non-stance is pretty much impossible to take.  So at least with the BBC we may get the outsider's perspective.  

[ Parent ]
Is Reality Partisan? (0.00 / 0)
When I am on the Net I am looking for a deeper understanding of the World about me and occasionally how I can strike a blow to improve that situation (tiny though it might be).

Bill Moyers put it best "News is what powerful folks don't want you to know, everything else is publicity" I do not have time to read publicity. Or even to wade through a bunch of it to find any actual news.

By that rule any actual "News" site will by definition be partisan as at the very least those with power will oppose it. This does not make the information false, or falsely framed and if there are honestly managed comments any such thing will very quickly be outed in any case.

There are indeed right wing blogs that are impervious to reality, but as time keeps slapping them in the face I expect that they will become ever more cultish or dwindle away, read only by their astroturf funders.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox